Dillahunty vs. Slick and A.I.
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
14-10-2016, 06:26 PM
Dillahunty vs. Slick and A.I.
I just recently came across a clip from the most recent debate between Matt Dillahunty and Matt Slick which can be found here. At around 1:20:00, Slick asks the question, "How does a physical brain produce proper logical inference if one chemical state leads(?) another chemical state and that's what our brains are?"

Trying to answer the question myself, I came up with something like, "the brain, constructed out of physical properties that follow mathematical laws and therefore logic, is a structure that is able to recognize its own world's logic". I feel very strongly that there is an analogy, possibly a perfect analogy, to artificial intelligence implemented in computer programs. Do we yet have such an A.I. that is capable of learning about its computational environment, so that it can be used to illustrate how our brains are able to accurately produce logic?

Also, I'd be very interested in anybody's own answer to the question, because I think it is an interesting one.

(Edit: Also, literally just after posting this I realized this probably shouldn't be in the "Atheism and Theism" section. I don't know how to change it though so maybe a mod will or something?)
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes unknowndevil666's post
14-10-2016, 09:07 PM
Dillahunty vs. Slick and A.I.
How does one conclude such a asserted thing as "proper" logical inference is a concept to query about having?

"Allow there to be a spectrum in all that you see" - Neil Degrasse Tyson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-10-2016, 09:28 PM
RE: Dillahunty vs. Slick and A.I.
(14-10-2016 06:26 PM)unknowndevil666 Wrote:  I just recently came across a clip from the most recent debate between Matt Dillahunty and Matt Slick which can be found here. At around 1:20:00, Slick asks the question, "How does a physical brain produce proper logical inference if one chemical state leads(?) another chemical state and that's what our brains are?"

Trying to answer the question myself, I came up with something like, "the brain, constructed out of physical properties that follow mathematical laws and therefore logic, is a structure that is able to recognize its own world's logic". I feel very strongly that there is an analogy, possibly a perfect analogy, to artificial intelligence implemented in computer programs. Do we yet have such an A.I. that is capable of learning about its computational environment, so that it can be used to illustrate how our brains are able to accurately produce logic?

Also, I'd be very interested in anybody's own answer to the question, because I think it is an interesting one.

(Edit: Also, literally just after posting this I realized this probably shouldn't be in the "Atheism and Theism" section. I don't know how to change it though so maybe a mod will or something?)

I'm slowly working my way through said video myself. I say 'working' because Mr Slick's side of things is... very hard to follow. At times seeming to be verging on word salad.

While his point (MUCH simplified from the reality it's portraying) is in essence accurate I note he doesn't actually offer anything else other than inserting "Deity did it" into the gap he's created.

Also of note is exactly how disparagingly simplified he's being when you read Mathilda's comments about interconnections and stuff. Not counting that it's not just chemical but electron flow and interconnected-ness and a whole other heap of things.

Mathilda has posted some where on the boards (Her rant against David Silverman, I believe) about just how powerful the computational process of neural networks (As in ours) actually are compared to the silicon processors of today.

It really is a LOT of processing power packed into the couple of pounds of toothpaste consistency stuff packed into the skull-box.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-10-2016, 11:36 PM (This post was last modified: 14-10-2016 11:40 PM by Rahn127.)
RE: Dillahunty vs. Slick and A.I.
We have the ability to see three dimensional shapes and we can recognize symmetry. We can also draw lines in the dirt and from that we can differentiate a great number of things.

Making lines, creating triangles, understanding ratios, discovering angles. All of this leads to math & geometry. Geometry leads to logic.

It's all about making connections in our brains. Our brains are a neural network and as we learn new things, new pathways are constructed in our brains.
It's not just a bunch of chemicals up there. It's cell structure & neural pathways.

There are about 100 billion cells in the human brain. When you calculate the number of pathways that can be created with 100 billion cells, you get a very large number.

Take the numbers 1,2,3,4,5,6.....to 100,000,000,000 and rearrange all of those numbers in a different order.

That's the kind of complexity we are talking about in the brain.

ASCII image of Spock using only a few different characters.

[Image: page274.gif]

Insanity - doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Rahn127's post
15-10-2016, 01:13 AM
RE: Dillahunty vs. Slick and A.I.
(14-10-2016 06:26 PM)unknowndevil666 Wrote:  I just recently came across a clip from the most recent debate between Matt Dillahunty and Matt Slick which can be found here. At around 1:20:00, Slick asks the question, "How does a physical brain produce proper logical inference if one chemical state leads(?) another chemical state and that's what our brains are?"

Trying to answer the question myself, I came up with something like, "the brain, constructed out of physical properties that follow mathematical laws and therefore logic, is a structure that is able to recognize its own world's logic". I feel very strongly that there is an analogy, possibly a perfect analogy, to artificial intelligence implemented in computer programs. Do we yet have such an A.I. that is capable of learning about its computational environment, so that it can be used to illustrate how our brains are able to accurately produce logic?

Also, I'd be very interested in anybody's own answer to the question, because I think it is an interesting one.

(Edit: Also, literally just after posting this I realized this probably shouldn't be in the "Atheism and Theism" section. I don't know how to change it though so maybe a mod will or something?)

Well the answer is that we have some control over our own brain states. Logic is a conceptual process. It is a process of selective focus. We are able to selectively focus by self generated action of our own brain just as we are able to move by self generated action of our bodies. We are free to think or not to think, basically. This is the essence of free will.

logic is the art or skill of non-contradictory identification of facts. We do this by means of concepts which are formed volitionally. It does not happen automatically like perception. Yes our minds are the product of biology and Chemical reactions but we have some control over it. It starts with our choice to focus or not to focus, to think or not to think. By choosing to focus our minds we change the state of our brains.

Logic is a conceptual process. In order to account for logic, one would need to have a theory of concepts. Where is this to be found in the Bible. Can Matt Slick point to those passages of the Bible which address what a concept is and how it is formed?What does the Bible tell us about the relationship between concepts and concretes. What is the key process in abstraction? What is an abstraction? Do the terms logic, concept or abstraction even appear in the Bible? They do not. How does Matt Slick answer this question? He appeals to his imagination and imagines that an invisible magic being gives us logic.

Do not lose your knowledge that man's proper estate is an upright posture, an intransigent mind and a step that travels unlimited roads. - Ayn Rand.

Don't sacrifice for me, live for yourself! - Me

The only alternative to Objectivism is some form of Subjectivism. - Dawson Bethrick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-10-2016, 03:33 AM
RE: Dillahunty vs. Slick and A.I.
(14-10-2016 06:26 PM)unknowndevil666 Wrote:  I just recently came across a clip from the most recent debate between Matt Dillahunty and Matt Slick which can be found here. At around 1:20:00, Slick asks the question, "How does a physical brain produce proper logical inference if one chemical state leads(?) another chemical state and that's what our brains are?"

Trying to answer the question myself, I came up with something like, "the brain, constructed out of physical properties that follow mathematical laws and therefore logic, is a structure that is able to recognize its own world's logic". I feel very strongly that there is an analogy, possibly a perfect analogy, to artificial intelligence implemented in computer programs. Do we yet have such an A.I. that is capable of learning about its computational environment, so that it can be used to illustrate how our brains are able to accurately produce logic?

Also, I'd be very interested in anybody's own answer to the question, because I think it is an interesting one.

(Edit: Also, literally just after posting this I realized this probably shouldn't be in the "Atheism and Theism" section. I don't know how to change it though so maybe a mod will or something?)

The tactic of a presup like Slick is to "pull the rug under your feet" regarding epistemology. Ultimately you can not prove that we are not brains in vats, or that the universe is a simulation, etc. So dont waste your time trying to defend your position vs such dishonest scum. Instead, point out what their position is based on: The (completely unfounded, pulled out of their asses) presupposition that a god exists and has told them everything they need to know, and because its a god who did this, they can be 100,000% sure.

Ergo: Both of you can not account for anything, but i would go with the more simple worldview according to occcams razor, the one without this pesky litte additional parameter of a god.

Ceterum censeo, religionem delendam esse
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-10-2016, 03:39 AM
RE: Dillahunty vs. Slick and A.I.
Addeddum: Dillahunty already has been engaged with a presup, Sye Ten Bruggencate, and i think his rebuttal is spot on. Watch the video from 26:30.




Ceterum censeo, religionem delendam esse
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-10-2016, 05:06 AM
RE: Dillahunty vs. Slick and A.I.
(14-10-2016 09:07 PM)ClydeLee Wrote:  How does one conclude such a asserted thing as "proper" logical inference is a concept to query about having?

Can't one query about any concept? But I think it's definitely justified in Slick's case. He believes he has the ability to think logically through God or something supernatural, beyond the physical. He is then asking how one can think logically when restrained to the physical world. And clearly we claim to think logically, so it is a concept that we have that he is able to question from his worldview.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-10-2016, 05:12 AM
RE: Dillahunty vs. Slick and A.I.
(15-10-2016 05:06 AM)unknowndevil666 Wrote:  
(14-10-2016 09:07 PM)ClydeLee Wrote:  How does one conclude such a asserted thing as "proper" logical inference is a concept to query about having?

Can't one query about any concept? But I think it's definitely justified in Slick's case. He believes he has the ability to think logically through God or something supernatural, beyond the physical. He is then asking how one can think logically when restrained to the physical world. And clearly we claim to think logically, so it is a concept that we have that he is able to question from his worldview.

The human brain evolved. Some brains out-competed others. No supernatural explanation needed.

Front row seats for the Lancelot Link and the Evolution Revolution Reunion Tour!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-10-2016, 05:20 AM
RE: Dillahunty vs. Slick and A.I.
(14-10-2016 09:28 PM)Peebothuhul Wrote:  Also of note is exactly how disparagingly simplified he's being when you read Mathilda's comments about interconnections and stuff. Not counting that it's not just chemical but electron flow and interconnected-ness and a whole other heap of things.
(14-10-2016 11:36 PM)Rahn127 Wrote:  It's all about making connections in our brains. Our brains are a neural network and as we learn new things, new pathways are constructed in our brains.
It's not just a bunch of chemicals up there. It's cell structure & neural pathways.

I think the point of Slick's question, although he does grossly misrepresent it by calling it "chemicals" and comparing it to the reaction between baking soda and vinegar, is "how is a physical brain capable of handling pure, abstract logic?". The way he's thinking, no matter how complex a physical system is, it doesn't have any mechanism that is pure and logical. In other words, 1000000000000! * 0 is still 0.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: